**** Official Microsoft Flight Simulator Thread ****

Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
91,163
Even chocoTaco was playing MSFS last night, albeit badly!

Dunno if MS is pushing it but noticed quite a few YT gamers/streamers are playing it that normally don't do that kind of game with rather mixed, though to be fair quite entertaining, results. It is popping up in my YT recommended feed heavily.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Oct 2005
Posts
4,797
Location
Manchester, UK
I think this version of flight sim seems to be aimed at a broader range of people than previous versions and is catching the attention of a wider spectrum of gamers.

I think it's probably as its the first iteration of a flight sim that I can remember where the ground and environment is worth admiring in the base game.
 
Associate
Joined
4 Apr 2012
Posts
451
Soldato
Joined
22 Sep 2008
Posts
10,051
Location
Burscough
So, hard core flight simmers alert !!!!!

Has anybody given any thought on how to utilise the navblue data, or subsisted with their Navigraph subscription? Its too early days for me to consider flying the large airliners until their systems are all working through 3rd party devs, so just GA flying for me for now.

But am interested to hear what people are thinking of doing?
 
Associate
Joined
2 Aug 2013
Posts
124
Location
Oxfordshire
Installed this yesterday via the £1 per month game pass and I'm trying to assess whether or not it's worth upgrading my PC for, my PC being a 4690k and 970 with 8GB of RAM, but with a fast SSD and 200Mb internet.

At 4K medium settings it's borderline unplayable as you might expect, but I've already seen enough to know I'm going to spooge on an upgrade once all the next iterations of hardware are out later this year.

Installing it was a little painful (had to manually delete some files) but it seems like a great game.

I'm in a similar boat, but with a Vega 56. I had a quick jaunt around my local area in a TBM930 and it looked amazing, but definitely jumpy in frame rate. Need more time on it to get it running smoother at whatever level I can. I'm planning the upgrade later in the year when AMD release next gen.
 
Permabanned
Joined
23 Apr 2014
Posts
23,553
Location
Hertfordshire
Black screen even if you auger in at 200 knots. Obviously to spare the sensitivity of the ********** and potential shock horror BBC/DM headlines.

TBH game has more pressing issues...

Yeah I only downloaded it to fly into/blow up my house. Much disappointed, after all the effort I went to following a youtube video to find it/do it. :D

Hopefully its fixed/enjoyable to flight sim fans soon. :)
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Apr 2007
Posts
23,415
Location
UK
Black screen even if you auger in at 200 knots. Obviously to spare the sensitivity of the ********** and potential shock horror BBC/DM headlines.

TBH game has more pressing issues...

I think I remember reading that it’s more of the fact that the plane manufacturers didn’t want to allow people to smash up the models - probably for sensitivity reasons also, but alas I don’t think it was necessarily a decision Microsoft made.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Jul 2014
Posts
3,857
Location
Oxon
Thanks Michael. Do you hear the ATIS or does that working go hand in hand with ATC? I hear nothing through the radio at all. People report clicks etc.. but I haven’t heard that either.

can I just confirm that your default language is still Uk english and under speech it’s still uk English? You just have the US English pack installed as well?

thanks again!

These are my language settings, and then in-game it's just set to Windows Offline instead of Azure.

jiYrXjH.png

Watching DOC play this last night on youtube with his system which is the best of everything, yes he was on 4k but still he was getting 25fps!!! :)

Not surprising if people are struggling to get 60fps at 1080p, 4k is 4 times the pixels.
 
Caporegime
Joined
13 May 2003
Posts
33,962
Location
Warwickshire
I saw a YT clip of the 747 climbing at 9600fpm which is totally absurd. Read elsewhere you could probably get 4000fpm In real life with minimal fuel and cargo, but most passenger aircraft climb at between 1500 and 2000fpm to maintain passenger comfort. Sadly not just the GA aircraft that are way off in performance. Just hoping it won’t be too long for some decent third party stuff.
Sorry but a 747 is perfectly capable of a 10k fpm climb rate.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Nov 2005
Posts
24,698
Location
Guernsey
I think this version of flight sim seems to be aimed at a broader range of people than previous versions and is catching the attention of a wider spectrum of gamers.

I think it's probably as its the first iteration of a flight sim that I can remember where the ground and environment is worth admiring in the base game.
It also helps that there not really been any other AAA games released on the PC lately
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Apr 2007
Posts
23,415
Location
UK
I haz 4090!
Don
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
8,008
Location
Manchester
So, hard core flight simmers alert !!!!!

Has anybody given any thought on how to utilise the navblue data, or subsisted with their Navigraph subscription? Its too early days for me to consider flying the large airliners until their systems are all working through 3rd party devs, so just GA flying for me for now.

But am interested to hear what people are thinking of doing?

I'm going to wait until there are some payware quality commercial jets out before really getting into it. I'm enjoying the GA, and the A320 (I fly the Zibo 737 in XP11 normally), but I like the full sim experience and this isn't that. Completely to be expected of course, but I'm not uninstalling XP11 just yet.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Posts
2,640
Was taking off from London and had about 25 players on my screen with the FPS dropping to as low as 15 FPS with a 2080 super. Multiplayer is very demanding
 
Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
1,826
Location
Brighton
You last point is probably true in some way, but I do know that airlines always have one eye on how much a flight will cost them in terms of fuel.

A lower cost index, the more the airline is trying to save fuel, climb slower, slower cruising speed, and therefore presumably lower cruising altitude.

A higher cost index places more stress on the mechanical components of the aircraft - burns more fuel, climbs quicker and likely higher cruising speed.

Airlines keep BOTH eyes on the fuel cost 99% of the time. Cost indexes are worked out when the flight plan is generated by a computer that knows all variables and simply punches out a number. Overwhelmingly, the cost of fuel is the biggest influence. A higher cost index costs virtually nothing mechanically. The cost index will affect climb, cruise and descent speeds but doesn’t much influence the cruise level. The FMC obviously knows the weight of the aircraft and will advise the optimum cruise level and this will change as fuel is burnt and the aircraft becomes lighter. In simple terms, it’s more economical to fly as close to optimum as possible, i.e. as high as possible. The factors that will influence this are wind (you wouldn’t climb 2,000ft into significantly higher headwinds), congestion along airways etc.

Having said all of that, the speeds that are actually flown often differ from those calculated by the cost index. Within terminal areas, flow of traffic will usually mean that ATC mandate your speed in the descent. Similarly, cruise speed will often be modified to manage traffic along a busy airway.

Regarding climb rates (someone else mentioned), 99% of the time an aircraft will simply climb at the highest rate it can achieve at climb thrust. No commercial airliners climb at such high rates to impact passenger comfort. At normal weights, you’d expect to reach a cruise level of 37,000ft in about 25 minutes with the highest climb rates at the lowest levels and slower rates of climb as the air becomes thinner at altitude. A 747 won’t be climbing at anything like 10,000fpm unless doing a very brief zoom climb.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Sep 2008
Posts
10,051
Location
Burscough
Good post, and spoken with far more confidence and assurance in the subject than I!

In addition, you hear stories of some more stingy airlines who fuel up to the absolute minimum they can get away with too, to ensure their aircraft is as light as possible. I guess at some point there will be international safety laws that ensure aircraft are fuelled sufficiently at all times, but I guess there will be some that push it as close to the wire as they can get away with.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom